So i was talking to a sheriff from texas on myspace the other day, he is into martial arts as well.. we were talking about using martial arts as a defensive tactic on the street against a perp, because i told him, a lot of my training is based on what we are allowed to use in the dept, anyway.. he claimed that the block be the last resort.. that i should learn more softer techniques.. now i agree that they are more softer techniques, but to make a comment like a block shoudl be the last resort?.. i have always trained that the block is the most important thing... while i am aware of the softer techniques, it all depends on what the perp is throwing.. or am i wrong?.. and we are speaking in the context of LE, that is why i posted it here, would it be unwise to block the perps punch or kick because it might leave bruises or something?...and i told this guy, not all the blocks i know, produce bruises and are hard

I kind of agree to some extent but not fully, although i do see where he is coming from. My personal preference is to redirect them as much as possible to help get them off balance or train to "slip" the punch and try to get inside for a restraint. This comes mostly from my personal feeling that technically there are no "blocks", i see them more as strikes attacking the limbs. The flaw i see in his stance is every law enforcement training i've seen teaches you blocks and deviating from law enforcement training in an altercation with a suspect can cause some legal head aches.

_________________________
Enjoy life while you can, you never know when things will change.

I can't comment on the departmental/legal aspects as they may vary somewhat from place to place. But as far as martial arts goes, I do place blocks as the last resort. In terms of defense, I try to utilize (in order of utility):

* evasion

* parries/misdirection

* blocks

_________________________"In case you ever wondered what it's like to be knocked out, it's like waking up from a nightmare only to discover it wasn't a dream." -Forrest Griffin

well what i was referring to when i started conversation with this guy, was about how nypd auxiliaries are unarmed.. and some of them do not seem to have the common sense, to block a punch or move out of the way.. unfortunately, two of our officers were killed when an officer was punched, and then they chased after the perp, where he shot them.. but what i was saying, is that you learn to read the perp's body movement, with years of training and you can parry or block, depending on the circumstance.. and 'i'd rather be judged by 12 then carried by six', so maybe there will be a legal battle if i stray from dept policy, but at least i'll be alive...

While agencies may differ in their policies, the US Constitution holds officers to a standard of reasonableness compared to another similarly trained officer with similar attributes in a similar situation and facing similar aggression/ resistance. Graham vs Connor also warns of the perils of judging an officer with the 20/20 of hindsight and recognizes that officers make split second decisions in tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving circumstances... for example, an officer at risk of being knocked out faces the possibility of being disarmed and killed once he is no longer able to defend himself. That situatin in and of itself may justify a higher level of force than you may initially believe necessary.

If a subject is being aggressive and initiating some action that requires a "block", I would think that the the opportunity and intent of that subject (even absent sufficient capability) would be to inflict harm (discomfort, bruises, lacerations, unconsciousness... death, whatever) on the officer. In that case, the justification would be pretty clear in most every jurisdiction to respond with force paralleling that used by the perp.

In other words, it is not reasonable to expect an officer to not strike someone who is attempting to strike him or her out of concern for harming them to the degree that they are at risk of being harmed.

"In that case, the justification would be pretty clear in most every jurisdiction to respond with force paralleling that used by the perp."<--although that might be different in other states or areas....

State of Florida Use of Force Matrix indicates that an officer can use 1 level above the amount of force used by an attacker.

The officer the original poster was speaking with might have been in a LEO that does not see as much officer assaults that another officer in another area (such as NY) might see. Therefore he might be less inclined to engage as quickly.

He might also have an administration that is quick to initiate an IA even if in another agency the use of force might have been considered justified.

There are so many ramifications in LE it is difficult to make a hard and fast generalization that sticks for every LEO.

As far as, "tried by 12 then carried by 6". Most long time officers are aware of this saying, however, I'd rather make the correct decision and not be tried at all.

Good point kel, but people must keep in mind that a continuum of force, whether it is a matrix/ graph, a ladder, pie-chart or wheel, is only a recommended guideline. It should not be a template for operations in spite of what some police administrators believe.

I know that some Florida agencies teach only FDLE basic recruit curriculum in their inservice (if they have it at all) because they believe they are under some umbrella of protection from civil liability if the "under-equip" their officers. The idea is that if the stuff works, good. If it doesn't and the cop has to do something else (objectively reasonable or not), they will hang him out to dry if it goes south.